Posted
by
timothyon Monday November 14, 2011 @04:24PM
from the soon-only-pirates-won't-be-pirates dept.

bs0d3 writes "Amelia Andersdotter is a member of the Swedish Pirate Party elected in 2009. Originally her votes were not enough to beat fellow pirate Christian Engstrom for a seat on the European Parliament. Today the EU has redrawn the lines and 12 countries are to gain one or more MEPs — including Sweden, where Andersdotter is set to be confirmed."

Now, now. I respect the right of anonymous people to be misinformed, even loudly. There's no need to call them names.

I have voted for them every chance I've gotten and I download everything I possibly can from iTunes, to the point of getting a US account. I also don't have a Spotify account since I don't like the pittance that the artists are awarded in contrast to what the labels themselves get for zero work. At least with radio, they send people out to bribe radio stations (which I'm against, but they *do* something). I can afford to, and am willing to, pay for music, movies, games and so on, and if that's what it was all about I wouldn't be writing this. I don't think that I'm a complete anomaly in the Pirate Party voter base. The current party leader is a publisher.

What voting for them is about for me is to put an end to compromising civil rights and democratic tradition in order for some industries to supposedly stay afloat. It's also about stopping communication surveillance that's almost completely useless and at any rate remarkably disproportionate and ineffective. (Search for "FRA law".) And, yes, as part of the party program is a plea to make sure that non-commercial file sharing is decriminalized because every possible (and quite a few impossible) obstructions are either contra-productive and/or violates basic laws or rights more severely that warranted. The whole green party bloc in the European Parliament has adopted Christian Engström's positions on this issue.

I suppose it's easy to just short-circuit to "I WANT FREE MP3S PLZ", but there really is more to it than that.

What's wrong with caring about the moral and economic repercussions of allowing corporations to own ideas? Or caring about government-sanctioned (or even run) extortion against citizens and unaffiliated content producers? Copyright needs to end. If the pirate party is the only party backing that move, then I support it. It doesn't mean that is the only issue I care about, but that I can't support a party that supports copyright.

As far as I know, the Pirate Party does NOT support the end of copyright. They support reducing it substantially. So if you cannot support a party that supports copyright, this isn't the party for you.

True, but non-commercial copyright isn't just reduced it is gone if the Pirate Party gets their policy through. So you can't make a Harry Potter movie from the Harry Potter books without paying royalties, but sharing both the book and the movie would be fully legal. That would of course make the movie rights much less worth, so I'd say it's pretty close.

I can't agree with that, but it certainly needs reform. Twenty years for a copyright would be OK with me, and I don't think sharing or other noncommercial use should be illegal. I think they should go back to making a copyright date on a work mandatory (it isn't because the terms are so rediculously long). I'd like the registration fees to drop back down to twenty bucks or even farther.

Copyright has been a good thing in the past, in its present form it's an abomination that hinders cr

I don't think it actually has been a good thing in the past, it just hasn't been awful enough to offset social and technological progress. The idea of copyright is a strange holdover from medieval economics, which is where privately held legal monopolies should have stayed.

Nope. Wikipedia:The Middle Ages (adjectival form: medieval, mediaeval or mediÃ¦val) is a periodization of European history from the 5th century to the 15th century.

Copyright was invented after the advent of the printing press and with wider public literacy. As a legal concept, its origins in Britain were from a reaction to printers' monopolies at the beginning of the eighteenth century.

Privately held legal monopolies existed in the medieval period. Copyright is a privately held legal monopoly. There are very few places where we still allow privately held legal monopolies. The only place legal monopolies make economic sense is in utilities, since they are natural monopolies already, but most of those are state or member owned. The main exception in utilities is telecommunications, which are privately held monopolies, and if AT&T and Comcast are any indication, privately held monopo

There are very few places where we still allow privately held legal monopolies.

Lets see, the gas company, the electric company, the water company, the ISP... probably well over a quarter of my income goes to monopolies.

Some utilities are owned by cities or counties, but most are corporate-owned. And yes, I agree that a telcom monopoliy is awful, but not a copyright (which should be a far more limited time, life+70 years is insane). I can listen to music without buying a CD, I can read a book or watch a movi

I don't know if this would be a good thing or a bad thing, but it would lead to a rather interesting world where corporations would probably end up sharing stuff... that their competitors produce. Would be rather amusing to see a release of say Windows 8 freely patched and distributed with the authenticity and quality we expect from Apple.

I've been working on The Paxil Diaries since 2003, it'll be in book form soon (I need permission to add a 40 year old poem by a dead poet). You have to give the guy who's working on something by himself a little time. An author or musician who doesn't have to do anything to do but write can get a book or album done in a few months, but for those of us with a day job there just isn't enough time.

Plus, most movies take a couple of years to shoot, by the time it hits the theaters your five year limit is halfw

Plus, most movies take a couple of years to shoot, by the time it hits the theaters your five year limit is halfway gone. IIRC, Star Wreck - In The Pirkinning took over five years to "film" because it was all volunteer part timers making it. With a five year copyright, it would have been in the public domain before shooting was finished.

They should make copyrights non-transferable too, to avoid the situation where an artist who composed a song loses the right to play it or is simply boned by the record label on royalties.

Copyright is free, BTW, you don't have to pay anything or "register" your work. The moment you make something you own the copyright on it, although in practice you may need to create some evidence of that in order to enforce it in court at a later date.

Part of that boning is that under copyright law, phonorecords are automatically "works for hire" -- the label holds copyright.

Wrong. Big labels wish they were and they've tried several times to remove the huge legislative block which prevents them from making recordings works-for-hire but they've failed. Recordings are owned by the artist who usually assigns the copyright to the label. It's close to the recording being work-for-hire but the main difference is that the artists can change their minds 35 years after they've assigned their copyright and get their recordings back. Sit back and watch the hillarity ensue in 2013 when the

Does it bother you at all that that is not at all what he said? I ask because it makes me sad to see a human being incapable of parsing a very simple piece of text. Many people are dispirited by the realpolitik practised by most parties with any actual power, by the lobbying power of industries and of special interest groups with views which appear grotesque or simply stupid, and by political corruption. Furthermore, many countries have voting systems which are conservative - the populace tend to vote for t

Does it bother you at all that that is not at all what he said? I ask because it makes me sad to see a human being incapable of parsing a very simple piece of text.

This is the actual problem.
That the MAJORITY of people these days, cannot parse factual statements, let alone analyze and cross compare them.

Plato feared that the majority of people were too stupid to be allowed to have a vote.
In 2,000 years, while the amount of knowledge AVAILABLE to people has increased; sadly, the basic intelligence of people has not.

What's sad is that some are so thoroughly indoctrinated by the religion of the capitalist world system that they cannot fathom a world in which musicians don't need to be millionaires. Nobody does. People sang before copyright laws and they lived happy, culturally enriched lives. Artists aren't served by the current system, in fact, artistic merit is borderline irrelevant in the modern music industry. By and large, the vast majority of musicians are images constructed by marketing machines and not really ar

Not buying it would be the duty. Stealing it happens because you want something that you don't have.

That would be like telling the patriots in the original Boston Tea Party that they should have just not bought the tea.

Sometimes, political acts have to be overt and transgressive.

Believe me, I have no interest in seeing Hangover 2 or Harry Potter and the Temple of Doom Part 2. Those so inclined might not be downloading them because they want to see such crap, but because they want to seed such crap, as a n

What makes me sad for being a member of human race is how many people confuse opposition against copyright monopoly with just wanting to download movies and music without paying. Pirate Parties around the world are built around the same values and ideals of sharing that have driven scientific progress for over 300 years. Isn't it peculiar that those parts of our economy most responsible for past progress and most important for future progress also have the least protection of "intellectual property"?

I don't support Piraty Party stance on copyright and patents - I consider it to be too extreme (e.g. they want to legalize "personal" sharing, which really means any non-profit redistribution - this effectively makes copyright worthless, even if it's still on the books). Even so, I would support them, for the simple reason that they are a minority (so far, at least), and cannot bend things their way altogether. What they can do is try to balance out, or at least moderate, the other extreme that we currently

... who thinks that a name like 'Pirate Party' sounds like some sort of childish joke. They might have serious intentions, but I could no more bring myself to take them seriously than I could one called the "purple polka dot clowns party".

Even at best, to try to take the name at face value, their naming suggests they are advocating something that is strongly associated with disobedience and anarchy.

They need to grow up, IMO.

(This post is probably going to get modded as a troll, but it's still my honest opinion.)

While I agree in theory that the name isn't very well thought out, I'm not sure it is really that bad. Sometimes you need to rally on "stupid" things to get motivation.
Also I'm not sure Republican or Democrat is any less of a childish joke at this point. Just more historical.

Case in point, which appeared to work: "It's the economy, stupid." (This was a sign in President Bill Clinton's office, which he wrote, and was meant to be directed towards himself as both motivation for the issues he should direct his attention to, and also some self-criticism.)

For years the UK had a party called "The Monster Raving Looney Party" which was lead by "Screaming Lord Sutch".It was always rather special seeing the candidates on the podium waiting for the results, and there often being some fool in a silly hat up there. I think politics in the UK has since become much more pompous. Nothing wrong with a silly party or two - especially when it begins to sound like the only one making sense.

Policies such as banning farm vehicles from public roads between the hours of 7am and 9am and 4pm and 6pm. One of the best policies ever IMO. No more tractors fucking up the commute home or making thousands of people late for work!

The Loony Party has in fact won a few elections, and also beaten major UK parties on occasion. As far as Pirate Parties go, I think an age difference might be at work here: Younger people like myself are used to listening to cogent arguments from people dressed in jeans and a T-shirt up against idiotic arguments from people in suits and ties. So we've learned the lesson that appearing respectable isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Last I heard, the Tea Party wasn't an actual political party, just a bunch of whiners. Something to put on the end of your conservative political resume, not a specific political party you were a member of.I mean, ignoring the fact that it was nothing more than a Republican vassal puppet.

You're right about the GOP, but I can't see it as anything other than an a funny way of saying they're regressive old twats.

The Tea Party is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, the American Revolution, and the original colonial grievances with the British crown . I will admit, though, without the historical context it is a pretty silly name.

Technically, the Democrats don't use the donkey officially But even so, of course a symbol of work and determination would represent a pro-worker party. Read what I wrote earlier about donkeys [slashdot.org].

complaining about the name just shows a lack of understanding of the issues of the party, completely.

Considering the "rent is too damn high" party and how the democratic and republican party logos are about the worst animal choices possible (donkey/elephant? really?), I'd say that the issue has nothing to do with the name.

The elephant and donkey were originally used in political cartoons lampooning the parties.

A political cartoon by Thomas Nast, published in Harper's Weekly on November 7, 1874, is considered the first important use of the [elephant] symbol.[15] In the early 20th century, the usual symbol of the Republican Party in Midwestern states such as Indiana and Ohio was the eagle, as opposed to the Democratic rooster. This symbol still appears on Indiana, New York,[16][dead link] and West Virginia[17][dead link] ballo

You only feel that way because you have been propagandized from birth. Look nobody should want to live in a world run by pirates, in cannons on stolen ships lets kill people and steal their stuff, sense. That world of might makes right sucks, want to know what can be worse than that? A world run by tyrants.

Our Western republics are day by day being taken over by small group or ruling oligarchs with tyrannical and authoritarian ideas on dictating your life cradle to grave, and you shot at becoming one of them is growing smaller by the hour as they slam the latches on your shackles closed. I was listening to the radio this morning and in the context of another story the speaker matter of factly stated many young Italians will never have a steady job!

Wow you know what the means it means they will always be in debt and always depend on hand outs, by extension following some process to get those handouts, and having to empower the people who give them those hand outs even at the cost of their opportunity to perhaps eventually not need them. They will never know independence; Its a kinder gentler form of SLAVERY.

With tyrants if you stand up you will be crushed, well unless you lead a successful revolution. With pirates, if you take a shot odds are you will be killed but you are little more likely to prevail than against an installed tyrant. Best part is if you win against a pirate you are the new pirate king (little K).

I'd take Pirates over the current world leadership, if asked to make a choice.

Do you realize that they are referring to so-called "internet pirates?"
Nobody is killing anyone or endorsing lawlessness...
The Pirate Party platform revolves around three main issues:
Copyright and patent reform, less intrusive commercial and government surveillance and increased freedom of speech.

Such a name would unambiguously state their agenda, and firmly represents their platform in a positive manner, rather than sounding like a childish plea to gather attention because their platform doesn't have sufficient merit to gather interest on its own.

I was listening to the radio this morning and in the context of another story the speaker matter of factly stated many young Italians will never have a steady job!

What you say about Italy is interesting. I've been thinking recently that the people who created the European Central Bank, and removed the ability for those countries to inflate their currency, are the new thieves of the economy -- and knew full well what they were doing. It's working almost as well as the Federal Reserve Banking system. The root of it is fractional reserve lending; for more info Google for Zeitgeist, they now have 3 movies and are working on a fourth.

But not in the way most people would be thinking.Remember, Piracy was adopted as the major branding slogan by content publishers because they thought it would have negative connotations. Accuracy and truth were not a part of it; they were going for psychological hits rather than any actual reasoning based off of logic and justice.

In calling it a "Pirate Party" they are mocking the originators of the term. It had already lost its meaning and reversed, becoming an average term, and now used by a political party as a straight-out rallying term of endearment against anachronistic corporations and the politicians they control.

Which is in and of itself quite petty, and thus childish. Still amusing, and still a group of politicians that I'd trust further for many issues (completely unrelated to piracy or media) than most others.

Piracy or Warfare? It was technically only piracy during peace-time. When privateers were sailing with a mandate from the king (to attack the merchant or war vessels of specific nations) it was a form of economic warfare.

Certainly it wasn't just the British either- this was a "legitimate" form of warfare across all of Europe. The French on the British and Spanish- the British on the Spanish and the French. The Spanish on the Dutch.

The stereotypical pirate during peacetime though were not operating on th

How about the "Green Party"... I guess their symbol is the incredible Hulk... and they love lettuce, spinach, beans and peas... and prefer grass in their backyards... granny smith apples... right? So how silly is calling yourself "Green"?
It's all abound marketing your brand. I know where "pirate" comes from; people who infringe on copyrights being called "pirates" by the Gentlemen Rightsholders; this term has been reappropriated as a badge of honour. A pirate party is attractive to those being branded pir

Wearing "pirate" as a badge of honor gets literally less than zero respect from me (and just shy of wholehearted contempt), because I believe that copyright holder's interests should be preserved, and not disrespected. As the whole point of being a pirate is to practice the latter, I find no reason to respect their attempt at reappropriating the term as a positive thing. One might as well be, in my view, reappropriating a term like "embezzler", for example.

You are wasting your breath here. I think you are correct, but you are speaking to a bunch of people who see the ability to get something, hell anything. by anyone and put it on a torent for all to have as some sort of inalienable right.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

The framers did not define the phrase "limited time" so that has been left up to the congress, ie: "the people" and therefor if you want to get that defined you have to make the changes in the CFR.

Here is a general explanation of the definition of a "limited time" as it currently exists"

The term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. For works first published prior to 1978, the term will vary depending on several factors. To determine the length of copyright protection for a particular work, consult chapter 3 of the Copyright Act (title 17 of the United States Code). More information on the term of copyright can be found in Circular 15a, Duration of Copyright, and Circular 1, Copyright Basics.

If you don't like that, then it is time to start working on your senators and congressman. Get enough of a ground swell going that those people will see that they will not be re-elected if they

There seems to be a misunderstanding on your part: The Pirate Party does not want to cut artists off their fair compensation, quite to the contrary. It is the media industry that cheats artists out of their due pay through business practices that would put the Mafia to shame. The PP wants to balance the interests of the creators of media against those of society in a manner that ensures the livelihood of the former while protecting the freedom of the latter.

Consider, if you treated copyrighted works EXACTLY as you say they should be treated (as opposed to the way the law now claims they should be), the RIAA and co would not hesitate for a second to call you a pirate. The Pirate Party recognizes that (note that they are not advocating abolition of copyright either) and says "fine, so we're pirates!".

You're entitled to not like the name, but you shouldn't read so much into it. You don't necessarily believe that "Honest Al's Used Cars" is honest, do you?

That, I believe, may be the sanest answer I've heard to address this matter out of any response to my previous remarks (I'm still shocked as hell that it didn't get modded as troll or flamebait, by the way.. it may be my honest opinion, but I was sure it would be thought of as deliberately trying to push people's buttons).

Notwithstanding, I believe that the system can be changed by working within it. Sure, there are exceptions to this (most profoundly in matters involving human or civil rights), but for

I can see where you're coming from, it certainly is cheeky. Perhaps a bit less so when you read the story [falkvinge.net] of how the name came about, but still somewhat and from the very beginning.

It's a matter of taste, but personally, I appreciate a bit of cheek, particularly in the face of hypocrisy such as the *AA, two organizations whose members are famous for their "creative" accounting and for starting out as patent infringers, and the politicians in their pockets.

Yes, but they are garnering attention under a name that *VERY* heavily implies that they aren't interested in working within it at all. There's a saying about "good intentions"... and a less than desirable conclusion. Are you familiar with it?

Anyways, I remain resolute in the belief that going with a name specifically designed to gather attention *because* it is... well... outrageous, since I can't really think of a better term... sort of reminds me of a child who acts up deliberately to gather attent

Even at best, to try to take the name at face value, their naming suggests they are advocating something that is strongly associated with disobedience and anarchy.

In case you forgot, the Pirates did not invent the term, they were called so by industry propagandists. They took on a label given to them by their adversaries. And they did not take it on to express their taste for "disobedience and anarchy". Calling the party "Pirate Party" actually was both the obvious and also the cleverest thing to do. This way

they use a term that has already been established in public debate and that is at least roughly understood by the majority of the population and

There were also, for a short time, parties known as the "Bull Moose Party" and "The Knownothings"(for this, think of William Cutting and the Association of American Natives in Gangs of New York) in US political history.

Well... traditionally, how a party is named usually reflects their agenda in some way.

As I have no interest in furthering the cause of piracy (I refer to media piracy, specifically), I don't see any point in voting for them.

Now, I'm aware that's not their actual agenda (probably... they don't actually deny it anywhere that I've seen) , but, like I said... I think that they need to grow up and live in the real world. People that not only show a lack of any effort to present themselves as outwardly resp